PB root word set is invented, not discovered
Day ten -- Question -- "sangi39" -- So, it seems the PB radical system is based really more loosely on Chinese radicals, taking into account more spiritual interpretations of some radicals and reworking others into less complex radicals. This would help towards explaining the lack of verbs, since the majority of chinese characters are built of radicals which had a primarily concrete noun meaning, but also the "fuzzy" choice in certain "head" radicals, where the original radical is remade by adding some other radical. Answer -- The current PB set is 100% derived from the traditional Chinese word system, but it is absolutely not based "loosely" on it. At this point, I need to explain an "Invention theorem" which is also very important for proving the existence of a true PreBabel set from a different angle. In the past, many newspapers reported that a new law of nature was discovered. This could well be the case for some, as a new law was summarized after some phenomena were observed and analyzed. But, most of the time, a theory is constructed long before its verification. Then, that theory is "invented", not discovered. In my personal case, I am the author of the book "Super Unified Theory" (Library of Congress Catalog Card number 84-90325). By typing in the book title "Super Unified Theory" at the US Copyright Office's search page below, http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First the only result is me (Jeh-Tween Gong). I am the only person in the world who claimed the book title "Super Unified Theory" since its publication in 1984. It is also the case in the High Energy Physics data base at Stanford University . High Energy Physics data base at Stanford University Yet, that theory is not verified, and some physicists do view it as a crackpot. If it turns out to be a crackpot, it will go into the trash can in no time. Thanks God, it has not reached that point yet. On the other hand, if one day, it is verified, then the whole world "discovered" that that theory is true. That is, I did not discover that theory but invented it. As those physics laws (listed in the book) are surely pre-existing before my invention, yet, I did invent it as any sign of such an existence was nowhere in sight at the time of my invention. In fact, most of the science theories work the same way, as a invention, not a discovery. Thus, an "Invention Theorem" can be proved. Invention Theorem: While the universe is moving forward through some kind of pathways long before the era of human existence, all natural laws (in physics, in chemistry, in biology, in mathematics, etc.) which describe those pathways are "invented" by human. This "Invention Theorem" may not be carrying much weight in the eyes of physicists, chemists, but it is one of the most important theorem for linguistics, especially for a universal language. And, I will discuss this point later. Although the PB set is 100% derived from the traditional Chinese word system, it was unknown to Chinese people for 2,000 years, and thus, the traditional Chinese word system was viewed as the worst written language in the world during the past 200 years by both native Chinese linguists and linguists of the West. Indeed, the PB set is my invention, alone. And, I am responsible for it 100%, for better or for worse. Thus, I must explain the principles behind its construction. In fact, those critiques of yours do hit on those principles. I am summarizing your critiques below: 1. Why are those spiritual roots? 2. Why are so many similar roots? Such as, 1. 6 or 7 roots just for hand 2. bird's head and bird's head in general 3. Why uses "horse head" instead of "horse", etc.? 4. Why are so many compound roots? These are, indeed, good questions. I need to answer them in two ways, for practical and theoretical reasons. 1. Practical reason -- I need to "accommodate" the Chinese system. It did, and I followed. With the current PB set, I can "reproduce" the entire Chinese system with ease. That is, I can "encode" the entire Chinese system with ease. This makes the Chinese system to be a "dialect" of the PreBabel. Then, the first step of constructing a universal language is completed. It also makes every premise in a universal language becoming testable, such as the criteria ii and iii. 2. Theoretical reason -- With the "Fuzziness theorem", any PreBabel set, if any, must be a fuzzy set. Thus, the entire design is according to the Fuzzy Logic. Today, the Fuzzy Logic is well-known. So, I will not go in the details on it. I am simply listing the key points which are important for the PB set design below. In comparison to the formal logic, there are, at least, three key differences which are having great importance for a PB set design. 1. Silhouette (bivalence) for formal logic vs gradient (multi-valence) for Fuzzy set 2. Completeness (formal logic) vs incompleteness (fuzzy logic) 3. Discrete (formal logic) vs continuum (fuzzy logic) The completeness vs incompleteness issue was discussed in my last post. We did live in a formal logic world for long time. Every gadget is either on or off, no choice in-between. Yet, language is not a black-white bivalence world with only yes or no. There are many, many gradients in between the two extremes. Thus, the linguistic universe must be a fuzzy set, and of course, its root word set, if any, must also be a fuzzy set. Thus, many similar (with gradients) roots in the PB set is not only common but sometimes is a must. Using the "bird's head" and the "bird's head in general" as an example, the "bird's head" was used to identify all birds in terms of their names. The "bird's head in general" is used to describe the quality or things related to birds. By simply adding one more root, a reader will never confuse the things or the quality about birds as the name of some birds. If the multi-valence is better than the bivalence, the continuum will be even better. The multi-valence is still discrete by all means. Yet, how to create continuum in the linguistic universe? It is done by inheritance and compounding. Starting with a fuzzy root word set, it begets generation one (G1) words, then G2, G3, ..., etc. For practical reason, it normally does not go beyond G5. Something very important happens during this kind of growth and compounding, that is, the compounds contain more information than the sum of their parts (roots or radicals). That is, 1. F(r1, r3, r7), the compound of r1, r3 and r7. 2. Info (F(r1, r3, r7)), the information carried by F(r1, r3, r7) will often be described with the following equation, Info (F(r1, r3, r7)) > (large than) the sum of Info (r1) + Info (r3) + Info (7) This additional small bit of information fills the discrete cracks, and the entire linguistic universe becomes a continuum. This compounding is, in fact, one of the essence of the PreBabel design. How ironic it is that a fuzzy set becomes much more precise than any crisp set. Fuzzy set discriminates much better and supply much more information. Signature -- PreBabel is the true universal language, it is available at http://www.prebabel.info